Master Thesis British Public Diplomacy as a Means for … · British public diplomacy which have an...
Transcript of Master Thesis British Public Diplomacy as a Means for … · British public diplomacy which have an...
-
University of Belgrade
Faculty of Political Sciences
Master Thesis
British Public Diplomacy as a Means for Establishing
Supremacy- Peaceful Aspect
Mentor: Student:
Prof. Dr Siniša Atlagić Milica Rašković,
index no. 19/2015
September, 2017
-
2
Abstract
In the modern world, and especially in the democratic countries, the communication has become the main tool
for gaining approval and legitimacy. Moreover, public communication became the way of representing the country
within and without and the way of shaping a county’s identity and image. In this context, communication refers to
talking to people, but also to countries’ acts, which are in and of itself a form of communication. In order to be
successful at this way of communicating, the counties adopted the practice of public diplomacy. However, in this work
we will not discuss much about the different ways in which public diplomacy can find use in different counties, but we
will focus on the case of Britain and the use of public diplomacy for the swift change of British national image. In order
to prove particular discrepancies between the past image of Britain, being forged from the 17th
to the 20th
century and its
unique identity, and the present image promoted by public diplomacy at the turn of the millennium, the author will
address the main elements of identity and image represented in the past and the prominent features of the present image
emphasized by public diplomacy. Additionally, this work will aim to explore the peace initiatives launched as part of
public diplomacy endeavours, their importance for the country’s reputation and most importantly, their successfulness.
There will also be underlined the reasons why Britain had to carry out such drastic changes within its identity and forge
a more appropriate image. Ultimately, this thesis aims to prove that Britain’s national image presented by public
diplomacy is too quickly enforced to be absorbed into identity structure, or to maintain the cohesion of the country.
Even though it was recognized as the necessary move in order to establish the country’s supremacy in the world of
modern liberal values, it harshly damaged the equivalence between image and identity, which in turn caused noticeable
mistrust from without and instability from within.
Key words: public diplomacy, identity, image, peace initiatives, Britain
-
3
Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
Basic Terms ....................................................................................................................................................... 9
Worldview as a tool for creating identity ........................................................................................................ 14
Roots of the British Public Diplomacy and Britishness .................................................................................. 16
Traditional British Identity .............................................................................................................................. 24
Colley’s Perception of British Identity ........................................................................................................ 25
Dodd’s Emphasis on Identity Crisis ............................................................................................................ 28
The Past as the Problem of the Present ........................................................................................................ 31
Main Elements of British Modern Identity and Public Diplomacy ................................................................. 36
Steps towards Modernization ...................................................................................................................... 37
Peace Initiatives ........................................................................................................................................... 46
Soft Power as the Clash of the Past and the Contemporary Image.................................................................. 56
Evaluation and Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 58
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 62
-
4
Introduction
In the rapidly growing and technologized world, the accessibility and quick spreading of
information have slowly decreased the power, once imperatively epitomized in the states’
governments, and gave it to people. In the modern era, when the number of the interstate wars is
approaching zero, the influence of the states which used to be acquired through the empowering
feelings of victory over another state and rewarded with the allegiance of its people, is now
dependent on other tools for generating and spreading that influence in order to maintain stability
within a state and primacy in the international community. The reason why this influence is so
important is simple- virtually all spheres of life have become very dependent on the cooperation
with other countries. Many would argue that this is the fact which has brought peace to our world in
the present, when compared to the period of the violent 20th
century, but it has also brought the need
for creating new tools for establishing who will get the larger piece of cake. The battle of the 20th
century and previous centuries of who has the greatest military has become the battle of who has the
best image and identity. As promising as this might sound, it is by no means easy to be in the
winning group of this battle. Why is it so? While waging wars is a very destructive tradition in the
human history, the governments at least had the rules and manuals at their disposal, created through
thousands of bloodstained years and battles. On the other hand, we are not used to peace.
The focus of this master thesis will be Great Britain, which appears as an obvious choice,
since it is the prototype of the country which had to change aspects of its identity from belligerent to
peaceful in order to maintain its supreme position in the world defined by the liberal values by
which interstate wars are not legitimized. From the formation of nation-states, England, later Great
Britain and finally the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been one of the
most powerful countries in the world. In the 18th
and 19th
century, with the rise of the British
Empire, it became the center of power and a hegemon controlling a quarter of the globe. The unity
of England with Wales, Scotland and, later on, Northern Ireland was accomplished due to their
geographic proximity, and not due to their cultural, religious or national bonds. The country formed
in such an environment faced discrepancies in opinions, views, values and beliefs, which could
have been an insurmountable obstacle for maintaining unity and power. However, this didn’t
happen, and the country rose to become an empire. This stability was preserved by creating an
improvised identity according to which the whole Great Britain consisted of people who are
righteous and virtuous, but, as such, obliged to constantly resist the dark forces which threatened
-
5
their existence and purity.1 Therefore, in order to defend itself from those deemed as a threat, Great
Britain managed to position itself as a supreme nation through continuous wars. Permanent
involvement in the wars of the 17th
, 18th
and 19th
century, and additional participation in the world
wars in the 20th
century, determined British collective national identity, because while there was a
constant threat from without, the British people had to be united from within. Most importantly, the
main force and tool shaping its image and identity was war. After the World War II, due to Britain’s
economic collapse and defeat in the war of opinions with the US, the hegemony was transferred to
the US, and the new world order was established. However, the values of modern liberalism were
not precisely those epitomized in Great Britain.2 But, since the US has become the country pulling
strings in the world, especially after the Cold War of ideologies, Britain had two options- either to
keep its traditional identity and risk losing power on the international stage, or to stylize its identity,
change its worldview and image, so that it fits better in the framework approved by the US. They
chose the latter. In order to reshape its traditional identity and image, Britain used newly developed
public diplomacy mechanisms. Additionally, with the number of the interstate wars decreasing
rapidly, the only “war” acceptable in the 21st century is the one of influence, and Great Britain has
decided to be in the winning circle of that one, too. In order to come out as a winner in the battle of
influence which determines economic opportunities, political power, and many other aspects of life,
Great Britain has presented itself as a modern nation, open to diversity, advanced in technology and
leader of modernity.3 And yet, changes within identity cannot come overnight. Its traditional
identity which lasted for centuries, from the formation of Great Britain as a country, cannot be so
easily erased, and stylized. Because of that fact, in their public diplomacy endeavours and
initiatives, this country has often experienced failures or inconclusive results of their diplomatic
projects, or only short-term positive results. In spite of the significant efforts, more often than not,
Britain continues to be seen as traditional, arrogant, stiff, cold and closed.4 Additionally, even
though liberal worldview encompasses peace promotion and initiatives, Britain has failed to realize
its full potential in this regard, and there have been only few such initiatives. Those which were
carried out were often short-lived or ran against the actions of the government. Recent happenings
related to the Scotland’s referendum on the separation from Great Britain, and Britain’s referendum
on the separation from the EU, leading to Brexit, leave us wondering about the future and unity of
this country. The problem at hand is- whether a country, formed and maintained on the premise of
1 Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992), 1-442.
2 Eric Louw, Roots of the Pax Americana, (Manchester University Press: Manchester, 2010), 1-282.
3 James Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 1-247.
-
6
fighting its enemies and unison based on traditionalism, can truly change overnight, or is it a type of
a stylized identity suitable for a world without traditional wars and used for parading it in front of
everyone to see.
Therefore, the main hypothesis of this master’s thesis which the author aims to prove or
refute is that the image of modern Britain is created as a part of its stylized identity which has the
purpose of presenting it as one of the dominant forces in the world determined by liberal values,
without waging a war. The two specific hypotheses which will be used in support of the main
hypothesis are the following: 1) The image of modern Britain created by the means of public
diplomacy presents a noticeable departure from British identity. The image of Britain forged after
1995 thanks to the public diplomacy, is based on a stylized version of its identity. The equivalence
of identity and image is impaired by overly emphasizing certain elements, and avoiding others. 2)
Peace initiatives are not a particularly prominent or successful aspect of British public diplomacy.
Some of the main reasons for exploring this topic are shortcomings and oversights of a
considerable part of literature in this domain. More precisely, the literature on this topic is
somewhat divided. It analyzes Great Britain in terms of disrupted continuity. It is focused either on
British identity then or on British identity now. Basically, the period of the end of the 20th century
and the beginning of the 21st century is presented as a formative period for this country. This period
is a crucial point in the history of Britain, and coincidentally, this is the time in which Britain
embraced the full potential of public diplomacy. It is also worth noting, that we are talking about
the country which after the WWII evaluated public diplomacy practices, at the time used by the US,
and concluded that they are unnecessary and useless.5 In literature, Britain is presented in one of the
two ways, which are also the opposite poles- Britain as a belligerent and traditional country, or
Britain as a stable, peaceful country, spearheading innovativeness and modernity. However, this
kind of presentation can’t offer us the complete insight into the true identity and image of this
country. I want to look at the period from the beginning of the 18th century till the 21st century as a
whole in order to show grave discrepancies in the main elements of British identity re-created in
this continuum. On the other hand, I will present some of the main strategies, and activities of
British public diplomacy which have an obvious purpose of presenting Britain as a modern and
influential country, for the sake of acquiring national profit through positive perception from within
and without. This other face of Britain and public diplomacy as a tool for stylizing identity will be
supported mainly by the study British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power written by James
4 Telegraph.co.uk, “Arrogant, unfriendly and no sense of humour: what foreign tourists think of the English”,
September, 2006, www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/736311/Arrogant-unfriendly-and-no-sense-of-humour-what-foreign-
tourists-think-of-the-English.html, (accessed March 3,2017). 5 Nancy Snow and Phillip Taylor, Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, (New York: Routledge, 2009), 22.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/736311/Arrogant-unfriendly-and-no-sense-of-humour-what-foreign-tourists-think-of-the-English.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/736311/Arrogant-unfriendly-and-no-sense-of-humour-what-foreign-tourists-think-of-the-English.html
-
7
Pamment.6 Also, to provide the readers with a deeper understanding of the importance of identity
and image, the process of the creation of British identity will be put side by side with the theoretical
framework of the creation of worldviews posed by Eric Louw in his book The Media and Political
Process.7
In terms of literature, this Master’s thesis wants to show that the authors who claim that
Britain is a belligerent country, typically traditional or conservative, and that those who claim that it
is a modern country, representing stability in Europe and the world, cooperation and innovation, are
neither right not wrong. Britain is both. It aims to prove that the core identity is the one proposed by
the former group, and its surface outer layer is the one proposed by the latter group. Unfortunately,
due to severe incongruities between the core and the surface, this country and its identity are very
unstable.
The scientific aim of this work is to recognize the patterns and steps which a country can
follow in order to change its image and certain aspects of its identity from the “inappropriate” one,
to a more suitable one in a given context. The work also has a purpose of shedding a light on the
processes by which some negative forces from without, such as: war, instilling fear, threatening
nation’s existence, can lead to some positive outcomes from within, such as: unity among different
people, cohesion, sense of shared identity, morality and self-respect. Also it will, reveal some of the
main methods by which public diplomacy works, and its importance in the 21st century. Finally, the
thesis will aim to evaluate the truthfulness, viability and durability of the quickly forged image as
identity presentation which is considerably different from the one long cherished in the past. On the
other hand, the social aim is primarily to either prove or refute the hypothesis that Great Britain’s
modern image is a stylized element of the identity, not particularly equivalent to the one promoted
for a long time in the past, but embraced as needed in the time of peace. Since the promotion of
modernization as a tool is one of the main weapons in the non-violent battles of influences in the
contemporary world, many other countries, such as France and Germany, seemingly follow the
same path of Great Britain. The purpose of this thesis is to show where this path could lead if
similar patterns as those perceived in Great Britain are applied elsewhere. Moreover, it will point
out to some problems which any nation can have with regards to its image and identity in face of
the historical continuity which appears altogether with the need for a change. The outcomes of this
thesis may serve to different spheres of interest. Primarily, analysts and researchers may find it
useful, as well as policy-makers and diplomats facing similar issues. Furthermore, it can provide
6 Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, 1-247.
7 Louw, The Media and Political Process, (London: Sage Publications, 2005), 195-209.
-
8
students and broader audience with guidance as to understanding of what collective identity is all
about, why public diplomacy is one of the main weapons of today, as well as, how the battle of
supremacy functions in a world without traditional wars.
In order to prove or refute the main hypothesis, the author will use a qualitative method.
This includes, but is not limited to: analysis, concretization, generalization, synthesis, abstraction,
deduction and induction. The author will describe the problem at hand in the context of historical
continuity, and compare the identity and image phenomenon existing in the past and in the present.
The views of different authors on the same or similar topic will be compared and contrasted.
Additionally, throughout the work, the theoretical analysis method will be used, which encompasses
critical analysis of the theoretical assumptions upon which rest different approaches to the research
of public diplomacy and immanent critique, critique of the consistency in drawing a series of
general and concrete conclusions based on the initial assumptions, and the analysis of the
consistency in the argumentation put forward.
The first chapter will be focused on explaining and differentiating some basic terms which
will be used throughout the work. The second chapter will take a dive into the process of the
creation of a worldview in general, since this is the phenomenon which directly determines the
perception of our own identity and identities of others. Public diplomacy as a practice is here
viewed as inextricably related to the creation of images, and as such based on the creation of
worldviews as codices of acceptable behaviours and opinions. The third chapter will present what
are considered to be the roots of public diplomacy, main institutions, and initial ideas behind it.
Here will be analyzed a prominent tendency to emphasize British modernity which includes support
and openness to collaboration, diversity, youth culture and technological advancements as a way of
establishing supremacy on the international stage, without the traditional might of war victory
leverage. The following chapter will analyze some of the elements of the British identity from the
past. More precisely it will take into account the presentation of Britishness proposed by Linda
Colley from the formation of Great Britain in 1707 to 1837. It will additionally point out to the
similar elements in the more recent years and identity crisis described by Philip Dodd. The chapter
will also describe the main British qualities perceived by other countries, summarized by Anneke
Elwes in 1994. Finally, in this chapter we will take a look at other perceptions of British identity
and elements prominent before 1995. The fifth chapter will depict the elements of British identity
promoted by public diplomacy practices at the turn of the century and in the 21st century. More
precisely, it will look for the protruding aspects of British image through the activities, strategies,
and aims of the public diplomacy, and the need to constantly change its mechanisms and the way it
operates. Also, the author will present the effectiveness of public diplomacy strategies, by
-
9
comparing the predetermined aims of public diplomacy initiatives with the outcomes i.e. what
picture of Britain they managed to send abroad. Here we will further draw a comparison between
public diplomacy and spin-doctoring and point out to their similarity as a potential stumbling block
for the public diplomacy operations. In the sixth chapter we will discuss the soft power as a final
stadium in the development of British public diplomacy. The author will attempt to prove that there
is a clash of the perceptions of British identity. Additionally, the aim will be to reveal the gray areas
in which the elements of the identity embraced in the past might emerge on the surface of the
identity promoted in the present and in the image which stems from it. The seventh chapter will
look at the meaning of Britishness in the context of the more recent events, such as the Scottish
movement for independence and the initiative for the separation from the European Union. It will
look at the events in the international relations and at Britain’s actions through the prism of identity
construction and reconstruction. In the concluding chapter, the author will present the answer to the
main hypothesis and try to predict some future trends which might emerge in the 21st century
Britain.
This, under no account, means that Britain is used as an example of the best practices in
public diplomacy and the one which should be imitated. Nor that it is, on the other hand, posed as
an example doomed to fail. Britain is not an exception for using the power of public diplomacy for
the purpose of changing its identity in accordance with the liberal values, since many other
developed and developing countries use it too, and are heavily dependent on its success. As for any
other practice in history, for this one too, we need to accumulate enough constructive instructions,
various inputs and analyze different information in order to establish how much public diplomacy
as a branch can do when it comes to changes within identity and creation of image, and whether it is
at all possible to change the core of a country’s identity and image. Gaining knowledge by proving
or refuting the main hypothesis is precisely the main motivation behind this work.
Basic Terms
In order to understand why it was so important to change the projection of Britain, we first
and foremost need to understand what needed to be changed. While sometimes considered similar
terms, identity and image are considerably different. They are certainly inseparable, because only
when something has the identity, it can also have the image, and vice versa, image cannot be
created if there is no identity as the basis. However, identity is what something actually is, in its
substance, without taking into consideration some external perception. On the other hand, image is
how others perceive the representation of identity in different contexts, including the ways in which
the possessor of identity is trying to showcase it and the ways in which those in touch with it
-
10
perceive it in accordance with their own values, experiences and beliefs. Image as such does not
encompass all the characteristics of the identity, therefore, it is to a lesser or greater extent a
selective phenomenon. 8 We can imagine identity as the night sky full of celestial bodies. On the
other hand, image is what an astronomer sees when he looks through a telescope. He can see only
certain parts of the sky at the given angle, but the parts which he sees are multiply magnified,
hence, they become more visible and prominent. In this metaphor, strategic communication,
propaganda, but also public diplomacy are involved in positioning the telescope in the right place
for the astronomer to see parts of the sky which are the most beautiful and alluring. If the country
wants to change the impression people have about it, the aim is to change both, aspects of the
identity and the image. But, since it is easier to change the image as the presentation of the identity
than the identity itself, the focus is often on reforming the image. In relations to identity, Slavujevic
recognizes three types of image: ”Image-representation”, in which there is objective equivalence
between identity and image,” image- distortion” in which the image is based on some true aspects
of identity but as a whole it is fairly stylized and some aspects of identity are promoted while others
are repressed, and “image-manipulation”, in which the image is based on the aspects of identity
which objectively don’t exist, as well as the equivalence between image and identity.9 If we had to
categorize the case of Britain, it would belong to image-distortion, since they truly tried to change
some aspects of the identity, and their changed image was still based on many attributes of their
identity, but in an attempt to change the image drastically, the equivalence between the two had to
suffer.
Additionally, the development of British identity and changes within that identity, in this
thesis is, is not analyzed solely at the time when it became the focus of public diplomacy, because
that wouldn’t give the full picture to the readers. As we will see in the following chapters, many
authors emphasized the changes in the British identity as a whole and studied the so-called new
identity as plucked out of time. However, the differentiation between identity and image should
once again be emphasized here, because the logic behind this work is that image can truly change
completely over time, but the identity of a country cannot. This is for the simple reason that identity
doesn’t have the ending point at which we can draw the line and start exploring the new identity
which comes with turning over a new leaf. Identity as such is not a static construction which once
formed becomes unchangeable. Quite on the contrary, it is very dynamic and aspects of identity can
8 Zoran D. Slavujević, Političko komuniciranje, politička propaganda, politički marketing, (Beograd: Grafocard, 2009),
96-100. 9 Ibid, 96-100.
-
11
change, but only as parts of the same identity and not as a different one which came in place of the
old one. 10
Both, identity and image are inextricably related to a broader sphere of the so-called
“country brand concept” which uses the practices of public diplomacy as its channel for operations
and potential success. Even though, the notions of identity and image are easily confused, they are
often very different, to the point that they can hypothetically be polar opposites. In the words of
Juan Carlos Belloso: “«identity» is what a place actually is, its essence, whereas «image» refers to
how this place is perceived (perception). We could say that identity originates in the same country,
while image refers to the perception of the target audience, so they are two different but intricately
related concepts.”11
When it comes to comparing identity and image of a certain country, Belloso
further argues that “the image of a country hardly shows its true reality (identity). In fact, there is
usually a gap between identity and image (reality and perception), which is often a negative
factor.”12
However, working on brand image of a country through public diplomacy, whether by
emphasizing the parts of a real identity which are evaluated as beneficial, or by inventing a
completely different image from identity, has become an unavoidable part in the peaceful battle of
influences. And Britain is no different than other countries in this respect. If we simplify these
notions, we get the following paradigm- in the world where the traditional wars have ended, the
countries have developed mechanisms, such as public diplomacy, in order to enhance their image
which can possibly, but not necessarily, be considerably different than a country’s national identity,
an image which at the same time has the purpose of posing a country as closest as possible to the
values encompassed by the broader notion of the legitimized worldview, and most probably the
worldview promoted by a hegemon or several most powerful counties of a certain period. The
benefits which an attractive image can bring to a certain country are very straightforward and
diverse- everything from political to economic advantages and progress in all other spheres in
between and related to these two. Basically, overall success of a country and the quality of life can
be traced back to the nation brand. For example, “when a multinational decides to set up its
corporate headquarters or its distribution centre in a given place, the management can choose based
on infrastructure, climate, geographical location, safety, communications, availability and quality of
suppliers and qualified workforce, economic environment, openness of the local government to
foreign investment and many other items. However, it will be good for nothing if managers (and
their families), who are those who have to move, do not feel attracted by the destination. This is
10
Siniša Atlagić, Partijska identifikacija kao determinanta izborne motivacije, (Beograd: Fakultet političkih nauka i
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2007),11-20. 11
Juan Carlos Belloso, “Country brand. A differentiation mechanism and source of intangibles”, in Economy of identity:
differentiation and country brand, issue 05, 2010, 44. 12
Ibid, 44-5.
-
12
why, in a more or less strategic, structured and organised way, all countries, regions and cities
develop strategies and actions to manage and promote their image at both domestic and
international level in order to have an impact on and change existing perceptions.”13
In this
particular example we can see the vicious circle which arises. In order to draw investors or owners
of big companies, the government and other bodies have to create an alluring image of a country. In
return, if the created image manages to draw them to that country, this creates more job and
business opportunities which lead to higher profits and standard, lower unemployment rate, and
better quality of an individual life. The government which manages to provide better quality of life
for its people, becomes legitimized, which results in stability of the country and great political
power of the ruling class. On the other hand, if a country doesn’t create a positive image of itself it
will be only partially successful or not at all in other related aspects. However, good image is
simply not enough without good identity. In case of grave discrepancies in what is presented to be
true and what is in fact true, country’s true identity will be quickly discovered, and its image
branded as false and glazed over. Once tarnished, the image slowly recovers, therefore, the aim is
not only to change country’s image, but to go further and change some important elements of
identity. In order to gain influence, Britain as a country described as cold, distant, stiff and
traditional, had to adopt new values and refurbish its image, and appear as a modern nation, strong
competitor and worthy partner. Hence, what the author argues here is that through public
diplomacy, Britain did not try to change only its image, while remaining the same nations it has
always been. Quite on the contrary, in order to create a suitable and stable image, it has made an
attempt at restructuring elements of its identity, and to a certain extent is has managed to do that.
However, the core elements of that identity, as argued before, can’t change so quickly and it
remains to be seen whether the discrepancies between surface identity and image, and the core will
be reconcilled and the layers conjoined, or they will fall apart due to the strong forces pulling parts
of British identity in the opposite directions. Anyhow, when we put public diplomacy and the need
for a change of image and elements of identity in the context, it becomes obvious why Britain as
considerably different from what is now termed appealing, had to invest considerable efforts, funds
and potentials by the end of the 20th century into creating a new image for itself in order to preserve
its superior position in the interconnected globalized world.
Finally, we need to define public diplomacy as the discipline which has glaring similarities
with some other practices, but is nevertheless quite distinctive. The field of public diplomacy is
very complex and multifaceted, since it uses knowledge and techniques of various other fields, such
as: international relations, public relations, communications, traditional diplomacy, and many
13
Ibid, 44.
-
13
others. Also, public diplomacy is often equated with strategic communication, because both of these
have the premeditated intent to persuade people to behave in a certain way and spread a particular
message from the government to the masses, in order to enhance the image of the country,
especially abroad. However, many authors consider public diplomacy a much narrower term than
strategic communication, i.e. strategic communication encompasses public diplomacy as only one
of the ways of conveying a particular message to the public.14
Public diplomacy as a distinct branch
from traditional diplomacy appeared in the 1930s15
, but I would argue that it actually existed much
longer, though it wasn’t formalized and people were often unaware they were using it regularly.
However, people often confuse it with the traditional type of diplomacy, or simply use the term
diplomacy to cover both these branches. The main difference between these two is that “traditional
diplomacy is government-to-government relations (G2G)” employed when, for example, two
secretaries of state meet to discuss some issue or sign an agreement.” On the other hand, “traditional
public diplomacy has been about governments talking to global publics (G2P), and includes those
efforts to inform, influence, and engage those publics in support of national objectives and foreign
policies. More recently, public diplomacy involves the way in which both government and private
individuals and groups influence directly and indirectly those public attitudes and opinions that bear
directly on another government’s foreign policy decisions (P2P).”16
In a nutshell, public diplomacy
is considerably different because whether initiated by governments or by some other private bodies,
in both cases the target addressee is people. Moreover, what differentiates public diplomacy from
more standardized addressing of masses is that “effective public diplomacy is a two-way street that
involves listening as well as talking”.17
This notion raises diplomacy on a completely new level,
because people no long expect to be told what is right after they have elected their government.
Wide masses expect to be heard and for their opinion to be taken into consideration and possibly
transformed into new policies. Therefore, liberal democracies have to work constantly on gaining
legitimization for their actions. According to Robert Nye’s theory, on which British principles
heavily lean, public diplomacy has three main aspects. The first aspect is “daily communications”
or “day-to-day dimension”, which includes explaining to the public current national and
international affairs and the target audience are both- local people and international press. It also
means that relevant institutions have to be ready to quickly react and disseminate any falsehoods
which start spreading in the media.18
The second aspect is so-called “strategic communication”, and
14
Siniša Atlagić and Aleksandar Mitić, “What is Strategic Political Communication”, Godišnjak, (Belgrade: Faculty of
Political Sciences, 2016), 25-36. 15
Graham, “Emotion and Public Diplomacy: Dispositions in International Communications, Dialogue, and Persuasion”,
International Studies Review (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014), 522-539. 16
Snow and Taylor, Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, (New York: Routledge 2009), 6 17
Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power, (New York: Public Affairs, 2004), 111. 18
Ibid, 107-110.
-
14
it implies setting a theme and agenda around which public diplomacy should evolve. This part is
something like a promotion of a certain policy which government wants to pursue. And the third
aspect is the “development of lasting relationships with key individuals” which is accomplished
over a long period of time and through enabling “scholarships, exchanges, training, seminars,
conferences, and access to media channels”19
.
Worldview as a tool for creating identity
As I have already mentioned, being inseparably connected to the notion of identity and
especially collective identity of a country, public diplomacy should be perceived as a way of
promoting our worldview as the best and the most legitimate. Worldview is one of the most
powerful forces for directing people, because it can control our behavior, limit it or push us further,
but more importantly it can control our way of thinking. Eric Louw in his book Media and Political
Processes rightfully insists that this knowledge about worldviews is needed now more than ever in
liberal democracies in order to make the masses behave in the preferred way. He recognizes two
main techniques for ruling people: “using violence” and “creating legitimacy”. In the current world,
the latter is far more needed than the first, although the first is never completely excluded.20
To be
seen as legitimate leader, one needs to impose the worldview by which his/her actions are seen as
understandable and normal by the majority of people and which at the same time gives coordinates
to the masses so that they behave in a way which makes it easier to lead them and which
accumulates approval. In Louw’s words it “provides an individual with a fulcrum around which to
construct ‘a map’ for guiding his/her life.”.21
The worldview which we obtain in unnoticeable
manner, step-by-step, while we are growing up, also contains certain ideology. But, those ideologies
are not simply put on as a stamp on tabula rasa, but we need to be responsive to them and actively
engaged in order for them to work.22
In the words of Michael Freeden: “Ideologies are imaginative
maps drawing together facts that themselves may be disputed. They are collectively produced and
collectively consumed, though the latter happens in unpredictable ways, and that collective nature
makes them public property.” The reason why the worldviews attract so much attention and
devotion of politicians and governments is the fact that “existing signification systems are raw
material from which individuals construct worldviews”, hence “most people can be steered by
manipulating the available encoding possibilities”.23
For example, while slavery was accepted and
legitimized in the 17th
and 18th
century Britain, later in the 19th
century, in order to impose itself as
19
Ibid, 107-110. 20
Louw, The Media and Political Process, (London: Sage Publications, 2005), 194-5. 21
Ibid, 195. 22
Ibid, 196-7. 23
Ibid, 198.
-
15
the country of freedom superior to the USA who beat them in the Independence War, slavery was
abolished as malpractice and severe limitation on human rights. Since the USA at that time still had
colonies, Britain posed itself as a liberating country which respects diversity and rights of people
who are not part of Britain, in comparison to the oppressive neighbor across the Atlantic. This, of
course gave them in return political gain, firstly within Britain where people perceived their loyalty
as rightfully devoted to their country, and abroad, since they presented the picture of themselves as
rightful judges and advocates of peaceful coexistence and grantors of human freedoms.24
This is
one of the examples of how worldviews can change and the idea which is once considered
unreasonable, can become the new norm of behavior and thinking. When describing the
phenomenon of ideology Michael Freeden writes: “We encounter it as if behind a magic screen,
whose removal suddenly enables the initially hidden and pernicious attributes of a doctrine,
Weltanschauung or set of social practices to become hideously exposed by the knowledgeable
ideology-critic, much as the Emperor’s new clothes dissolved through the eyes of a child”.25
After the ending of the WWII, the US came out as the hegemonic power over all other
countries, and its position as the world leader was confirmed after the Cold War. Therefore, the
worldview of neo-liberalism they have decided to advocate and promote has become the one that
dominates the majority of the globe and is accepted as a regular standard, while any other view
clashing with it is perceived as alien or, at least, different from the norm.26
In such a world, it is
more profitable for the other countries to fit into the globally recognized view and cooperate with
the US and other countries which accept its worldview, than to stray away. Precisely this
complexity is what has pushed Great Britain to think about the picture of themselves they want to
project to the world, and consequently about their own national identity. The phenomenon of
identity created in a certain worldview will be viewed in this work as a socially constructed
category, as opposed to identity which is believed to be innate in every person. Identity is here
argued to stems from the worldview which is adopted at a certain time by a certain country and
individual. In order to understand its importance we need to make a distinction between two types
of identity- one being individual identity that distinguishes a person from the rest of the world,
which is usually focused on specific habits, customs, hobbies, interests, which makes a person
unique as a member of the population, society and groups; the other being group identity, which at
the same time unites people of the same groups and divides people of different groups, and includes
characteristics such as: ethnicity, gender, religion, social class, etc. In this master thesis’s the
attention will be devoted primarily to the second type of identity and in an attempt to shed a light on
24
Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992), 357-368. 25
Freeden, “Ideology and Political Theory”, Journal of Political Ideologies, (London: Routledge, 2006), 20. 26
Louw, The Media and Political Process, (London: Sage Publications, 2005), 206.
-
16
the potential ties and cracks along the lines of British collective identity. As part of Social Identity
Theory, Henry Tajfel gives definition of identity as: “a person’s sense of who they are based on
their group membership(s).”27
He further explains that group membership is used to enhance our
self-esteem which is accomplished either by enhancing the status of your own group or by
derogating the status of the members of the other groups, or by both. This further creates the
difference between “us” and “them” which further leads to discrimination, stereotyping and,
potentially, conflict.28
Although such a definition is quite black-and-white and paints collective
identity, wherever occurs in a partly negative light, many postulates of this theory are applicable to
the creation and remodeling of British identity. While being engaged in multiple wars, Britain had a
constant common enemy, which made the inner structure of its national identity coherent. Once the
traditional wars stopped, and the notion of other country as an enemy has become de-popularized by
liberal worldview, the ties holding the country together loosened, and some smaller collective
identities within a national one appeared. Tajfel’s theory in this context seems quite applicable,
because those refreshed collective identities within Britain could perceive other groups within the
same country as threatening “others”, with different values and clashing interests with their own.
Roots of the British Public Diplomacy and Britishness
Public diplomacy in Britain arose as a branch of politics which could be used to change and
modernize some elements of British identity from within and project such an identity outside of the
country’s boundaries as British image. In this work the development of public diplomacy won’t be
presented as a completely independent process from other political currents, but it will show that
those other processes actually influenced and shaped modern public diplomacy. It will present the
period of the development and practices of public diplomacy from 1995, when considerable efforts
were invested into its development, to the most recent period of 2016. Here, public diplomacy or
people’s diplomacy will be regarded as primarily state’s, but also other actors’, way of
communicating with people within and without, in order to “transmit information, ideas, and values
that support their interests”, with the purpose of “shaping a target’s preference”. Therefore, instead
of using coercion to get what it wants, a state has “to be engaged in argument and persuasion”.29
In order to understand the importance of British public diplomacy and the need to develop it,
we need to put it in the historical context. There were two big globalization movements recognized
27
Henry Tajfel and John Turner, “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict: The Social Psychology of Intergroup
Relations”, (Bristol: University of Bristol, 1979), 33-47. 28
Ibid, 33-47. 29
Sarah Ellen Graham, “Emotion and Public Diplomacy: Dispositions in International Communications, Dialogue, and
Persuasion”, International Studies Review (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014), 522-539.
-
17
up to the present time. The first one was led by Britain in the time when its boundaries spread so
much as to encompass a considerable part of the globe and diverse races and nationalities. Britain
was clearly a hegemon in comparison to the rest of the world, including the US which slowly
started positioning itself as a power after gaining independence from Britain in the 18th
century.30
Globalization led by Britain and its hegemonic power ended after the WWII out of which the US
appeared as the new hegemon and leader of the second globalization movement. The transition of
power was prompted by Britain’s economical weakening due to war31
, and by the fact that “Britain
had clearly lost the public opinion battle”. The US successfully launched campaign of de-
legitimization of British imperialistic values, while at the same time spreading and disseminating its
own values.32
With its booming economy and military, the US saw that as an opportunity to impose
their values and influence.33
Hathaway writes: “By 1947… the united Kingdom lay naked before
the world, stripped of its status and aspirations, and much of its pride. Like Greece and Rome before
it, Great Britain was forced to step aside before younger, more virile nation-states”34
However, what
may come as a surprise, is the fact that the transition of power between Pax Britannica and Pax
Americana was a peaceful one, supposedly because of their common history, similar cultures and
various shared values.35
Yet, Pax Americana also signified a shift in a way international relations
would function. Instead of forming an empire resembling the one which Britain had, the US
established its informal rule which was enabled “by a complex hierarchy of power relationships and
influence”36
, which appeared more in line with its highly regarded liberal values. And this is the
place, where public diplomacy as an important branch of politics in Britain steps under the
spotlight. In order to keep its position as a powerful player on the international stage, Britain had to
rethink its identity and its mechanisms for the projection of power in a completely new peaceful
battlefield where the main weapon is influence.
The two main trends which contributed to British willingness to reshape the role of its
public diplomacy, in general, and of the umbrella organization Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(FCO) in particular, are: “the confluence of digitization” and “broadened public participation in
foreign affairs”. The FCO has become the main institution for public diplomacy operations in 1995.
30
Eric Louw Roots of the Pax Americana, (Manchester University Press: Manchester, 2010), 1-37 31
Ibid, 3. 32
Ibid, 107. 33
Ibid, 3. 34
Ibid, 28. 35
R.M. Hathaway, Ambiguous Partnership. Britain and America 1944-1947, (New York: Colombia University Press,
1981) in Louw, Roots of the Pax Americana, 37. 36
Louw, Roots of the Pax Americana, (Manchester University Press: Manchester, 2010), 19.
-
18
It was a governmental department in charge of coordination of “its partners in overseas promotion”-
the British Council (BC) and BBC World Service (BBCWS). 37
The British Council is an “international organisation for cultural relations and educational
opportunities” established in 1934. It is registered as “a UK charity governed by Royal Charter
and a UK public body”. Its stated purpose is to “create friendly knowledge and understanding
between the people of the UK and other countries”.38
Basically, the BC’s area of work is
establishing good relationships and mutual understanding among people of the UK and people of
the other countries. Its spheres of operation are “arts and culture, English language, education and
civil society” with the aim of designing “more inclusive and open societies”, as well as enhancing
“young people’s opportunities”. In practice, its activities include: publication of various cultural
materials, improving the process of studying the English language, improving education condition
in destabilized regions, arranging gatherings of talented artists worldwide and facilitating the
process of student exchange. Currently, the British Council operates in more than 100 countries. 39
The BBC World Service is “a public service broadcaster” and it was also founded by the
Royal Charter, as an independent organization. It uses TV and radio broadcasting and online news
platforms. The BBC currently offers: “9 national TV channels - in addition BBC Three, the first TV
channel in the world to switch online in 2016- plus regional programming, 10 national radio
stations, 40 local radio stations and an extensive website”.40
Its operations are very widespread
since it broadcasts in 27 different languages apart from English. The BBC claims that its mission is
“to enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain”, and
their ultimate goal is “to be the most creative organisation in the world”. Finances for the BBC’s
broadcasting comes largely from “the licence fee paid by UK households” and additionally, from its
“commercial arm, BBC Worldwide as well as a number of other commercial ventures”. The money
which the network earns is used for the creation of new broadcasting material.41
It is also important to mention that while contemporary public diplomacy created its
framework in 1995, there were certain events which directly contributed and led to the events and
reforms of 1995 and after. Modern public diplomacy started in 1995, with the Fundamental
Expenditure Review (FER), and its goal was to establish an efficient apparatus which Britain can
37
Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 4.
38
British Council, “Our Organization”, www.britishcouncil.org/organisation, (accessed March, 24, 2017). 39
Ibid. 40
BBC, “About the BBC”, /www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/, (accessed March 24, 2017). 41
Ibid.
http://www.britishcouncil.org/organisationhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/
-
19
use for its promotion overseas and within the boundaries of Great Britain. 42
FER outlined that
public diplomacy should unite two different spheres “Information and Culture”.43
Previously, the
Duncan Committee’s Report in 1969 encouraged work in both of these spheres, but gave superiority
to information over cultural promotion, because the former was thought to be contributing more to
strengthening of the government’s policies, hence it was perceived as profitable investment.44
At
that time, the ruling Conservative Party wasn’t favourably inclined towards the BC’s work, and they
repeatedly threatened to dismantle it completely. However, by the end of the 1960s, Britain already
had its “overseas information service” whose tasks were: “to support and explain British public
policy overseas, but also to project as actively as possible Britain’s culture language and
achievements”.45
After the Foreign Affairs Committee of 1986 had made an inquiry into the
operations of the BC and its cultural program, the FCO enlisted five main goals of cultural
diplomacy: “to convey the image of Britain as a creative, well-integrated, and forward looking
society based on liberal values- a social and cultural model to be emulated and trusted”, “to inspire
respect and understanding for the people of Britain and their achievements”, “to correct wrong and
counter unfavourable impressions of Britain”, “to explain British policies and interest to decision-
makers and opinion formers overseas” and “to promote British economic interests overseas
including the export of British goods and services”. 46
After the FAC pressed the FCO and the BC
to drop the word cultural from cultural diplomacy, because all of its activities fell into the category
of regular diplomacy, they decided to make a differentiation between the two semantically similar
but different terms. The FCO stated that cultural diplomacy encompassed a range of activities with
the purpose of “embracing the whole breadth of cultural and information activity”. Cultural
relations, on the other hand, were dealing with “the state of our international relations in cultural
terms in parallel with our political and commercial relations”. But, the BC disagreed and defined
cultural diplomacy as “the specific use of cultural relations for national, including political and
commercial, benefit”, and as the essence of its existence and primary goal “to develop cultural
relations” which should “develop over time a greater understanding and appreciation between
peoples and institutions for their mutual benefit”.47
Such a distinction only heated up the already
existing discordance between the FCO as a hand of the government and the BC as a non-
governmental institution which collaborated closely with the government. By describing its
42
Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 1. 43
Sir V. Duncan, Report of the Review Committee on Overseas Representation 1969-1969, (London: Her Majesty’s
Stationary Office, 1969) in Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, 25. 44
HMG, The United Kingdom’s Overseas Representation, (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1978), in
Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, 26. 45
Sir Duncan, Report of the Review Committee on Overseas Representation 1969-1969, (London: Her Majesty’s
Stationary Office, 1969) in Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, 26. 46
FAC, Cultural Diplomacy, (London: The Stationary Office, 1986), in Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft
Power, 27. 47
Ibid, 27.
-
20
primary, though not only, work as cultural relations, which only contributed to cultural diplomacy,
and not as cultural diplomacy per se, the BC managed to preserve its existence and its status. 48
At
this point, it is worth nothing, that apart from the BC and the BBC External Services, in this type of
diplomacy were also included the Central Office of Information (COI) and the FCO scholarship
programme. The total investment in the operations was more than £200 million. By the end of 1990,
and in response to the FAC’s criticism about its way of supervising, the FCO developed a method
of “value for money targets”. This basically meant that all subordinate institutions had to present
their project and calculate the money they needed, which should be then discussed in terms of
whether they fit into broader goals of British public diplomacy.49
In 1995, while Britain was still led by the Conservative Party, a complete shift and
modernization of public diplomacy happened with the Fundamental Expenditure Review (FER).
The FER acknowledged an immense importance of public diplomacy, and the gains it can bring. It
completely rearranged public diplomacy, its institutions and hierarchy, and gave it more clear
perspective. It was the first time when the spheres of information and culture came to be formally
inseparable in the form of public diplomacy.50
The FER strengthened the position of the FCO as an
institution for oversight and a key player in public diplomacy operations. The FCO could approve
or deny grant-in-aid for the operations of the BC and BBCWS and they had to be in line with the
FCO’s goals. This Review also recommended seizing the opportunities the Internet had to offer51
and by initiating its first website in 1995, the FCO followed that recommendation.52
For the first
time Public Diplomacy Division became an umbrella structure for four departments within it:
Cultural Relations- with the purpose of steering and controlling the BC, Information Department,
News Department and Parliamentary Relations.53
Moreover, the role of public diplomacy at home
and abroad was clearly defined. Its operations abroad had the aim “to promote British interests and
influence by establishing respect and understanding for Britain and British policies, particularly
amongst opinion formers”. Public diplomacy within the country had also defined goal to: “to
explain Government’s foreign policy and how it promotes the UK’s interests”.54
When it comes to
the organization, strategy, and definition of public diplomacy, 1995 and the FER were clearly a
48
Ibid, 27. 49
Ibid, 29-30. 50
FCO, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Diplomatic Wing) Fundamental Expenditure Review, (London: Foreign
and Commonwealth Office, 1995), in Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, 30. 51
Ibid, 31. 52
Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 3. 53
FCO, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Including Overseas Development Administration: The Government
Expenditure Plans 1997-9 to 1990-00, (London: Stationary Office, 1997), in Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and
Soft Power, 32. 54
FCO, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Diplomatic Wing) Fundamental Expenditure Review, (London: Foreign
and Commonwealth Office, 1995), in Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, 31.
-
21
turning point. This year laid basis for the developments which would come in the future. Public
diplomacy of this period was devised as a concept of “nation branding”, and the debates circulating
around that notion determined the shape and the direction of public diplomacy in the years to come.
The main problem which Britain itself acknowledged was the fact that it was usually perceived as
traditional, cold, distant and stiff, which in liberal world weren’t particularly appealing attributes. In
order to keep their influence in the international world, they needed to project their national identity
as modern, open, entertaining and as accepting diversity.55
And here lies the main complexity of
British diplomacy efforts. It wasn’t enough to simply change the way of the government’s
operations are seen, they had to actually become what they wanted to project. In other words, the
change of image was needed, but also the changes within the identity, for the newly forged image to
be perceived as truthful. The debate which was developed around Britishness is, to a considerable
extent, stimulated by the works of Linda Colley- Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837, which
finds root of British identity in the 18th
and first half of the 19th
century, and emphasizes the main
phenomena which led to its construction and its main characteristics56
, Anneke Elwes’s pamphlet
Nations for Sale which points to the importance of nation branding and highlights the selling points
as well as the shortcomings of British image and identity,57
and Philip Dodd’s work The Battle over
Britain, which points out the misconceptions about Britishness and underlines the prominent
characteristics of identity which were very emphasized in the past and which could again come to
surface and be very useful for the purpose.58
These works will be further discussed in the next
chapter, altogether with some additional perceptions of British identity and its complexities.
The campaign with which British public diplomacy cut its teeth was newIMAGES in 1997.
It is described as “the first contemporary public diplomacy campaign”, and “the largest event of its
kind to date”. The planning and carrying it out stretched long enough to cover the change of the
ruling party from the Conservative to Labour in May 1997, which fortunately didn’t affect the
project.59
The decision that the campaign should be led in Australia was pushed by the Foreign
Secretary Douglas Hurd. He concluded that there was spreading a negative presentation of Britain,
which was further confirmed by the rhetoric in the Australian media.60
The main objectives of this
campaign were: “to reinforce the dynamic bilateral relationship between Britain and Australia”, to
connect people from the spheres of “sports, science, the arts, technology and commerce”, to connect
young people, and since the year of the campaign was the BC’s 50th
anniversary of existing in
55
Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 33-59.
56
Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992), 1-442. 57
Anneke Elwes, Nations for Sale, (London: BMP DDB Needham, 1994), 1-46. 58
Philip Dodd, The Battle over Britain, (London: Demos Papers) 1995, 1-41. 59
Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 34. 60
Ibid, 33-4.
-
22
Australia, to properly mark that year. The campaign was designed to last for a whole year, and
Britain wanted to use that year to emphasize the modern, open and fashionable side of its identity.61
During the planning process, the FCO, the BC and the Department of Trade and Industry showed
that they were more than capable of successful and efficient collaboration. The BC was in charge of
the cultural aspect of the project, which was actually the main part, and the Political and
Commercial departments of the High Commission in Canberra, together with the Consulates-
General, contributed by devising a plan for corporate and political topics.62
The activities which this
huge campaign managed to incorporate are “exchanges, exhibitions, conferences, business events,
trade shows, sporting events, workshops, master-classes, art-installations, theatre shows and
Internet initiatives”. Additionally, there were organized “major conferences in areas such as Science
Policy, British Studies and Britain in Europe”.63
Many students were sent on exchange, others who
stayed had the opportunity of meeting the celebrated Royal Shakespeare Company. Thanks to the
BC’s funding, Australian galleries had the opportunity of welcoming British works of art, such as
Pictura Britannica in Sydney presenting modern British art. Britain also presented the “Montage”
Internet program and Department of Trade and Industry organized a huge exhibition UK Now in
Melbourne. In accordance with the FER instructions, the potential of the Internet was used to bring
together children from the UK and Australia in “19 Internet projects”. Moreover, the campaign had
also its own Internet sites where people could be updated about the happenings in Australia.64
When
everything is added up, this was a huge project which encompassed 57 cities and towns in Australia,
and it was estimated that 3.5 million people in Australia participated in at least some of the
activities, which made around 50% of the whole country.65
However, we should keep in mind that
the effects and successfulness of public diplomacy and its projects are very difficult to evaluate. To
measure it, we should have some standardized metric system which would be applicable in different
times, spaces and context. This is something which has given many headaches to the British
government and to the institutions included in public diplomacy in the 1990s, as well as now. The
problem is that influence is not something tangible and measurable which we can put on the beam
scale or which we can count, and equally difficult as trying to measure any emotion. In order to be
able to prioritize funds allocation, the assessment of the projects has often been reduced to the
results of survey, number of views and shares, number of participants or general impression after
the project is over. Far from being precise, the assessment of newIMAGES was positive, and it was
61
Environmetrics, Evaluation of newIMAGES, (March, 1998), in Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power,
35 62
Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 34. 63
Ibid, 35. 64
Ibid, 35. 65
David Drewry, Changing Perceptions:APresentation by Dr David Drewry to Panel 2000 on 6 May 1998, in Pamment,
British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, 36.
-
23
considered a success. Additionally, Britain detected “a significant favourable shift in media
reporting of Britain”.66
Since it was the initial reason why campaign was launched in the first place,
it was treated as a mission accomplished.
This campaign seemed to be a tailwind for the future campaigns which would also have the
purpose of presenting Britain as a country which managed to encompass all legitimized liberal
values, through the use of advanced technology, the Internet, youth culture, popular culture and
multinational projects. However, the outcomes were difficult to evaluate and impressions varied
from fairly positive to outright negative or simply inconclusive. In the era of the Labour
government and Robin Cook, public diplomacy was reformed once again, but that reform brought
only the need to even more emphasize British liberal values. New project led by researcher Mark
Leonard BritainTM
had as the agenda to “find a better fit between our heritage and what we are
becoming”.67
Such an open acknowledgement that Britain as it is, doesn’t have the image that is
needed in the present, emphasizes the identity crisis which the country and its people faced at this
period. This crisis becomes even more prominent when we take a look at the main points of public
diplomacy of this era, which were: “Hub UK”- presenting country as a meeting point of different
nations, “United colours of Britain”- with the aim to show that the country is open to
multiculturalism; “Creative island” and “Open for business” points aimed to position country as a
modern nation which is fruitful for investments and collaboration, “silent revolutionary” and “the
nation of fair play”- the points which were intended to put Britain under the spotlight for its good
governance and sense of morality.68
Again, all parts of the agenda strongly echoed the rhetoric of
the US and promoted the values which the US had been defending for a while. Out of this
campaign, emerged even a more ambitious one- Cool Britannia. The name itself is to a great extent
self- explanatory. Once again, the focus of the public diplomacy campaign was on the country’s
progressiveness and modernity. This time, the target audience was not people abroad, but at home,
and the campaign evolved around the main political figure in Great Britain- Prime Minister Tony
Blair. The campaign was promoted by popular magazines such as Vanity Fair, Newsweek and Time
and it was televised as a sequence of gatherings with Tony Blair and popular celebrities of the time
from various spheres of interest.69
Paradoxically, while campaign appeared interesting to the people
outside of Britain, it failed to send its message to its target audience. At home, its program was
widely ridiculed and people rejected it, and celebrities who appeared with Blair dissociated
66
Ibid, 37. 67
Mark Leonard, BritainTM
: Renewing Our Identity, (London: Demos, 1997), 5. 68
Ibid, 1-73. 69
Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 42.
-
24
themselves from the Prime Minister, regretting the involvement.70
Through this campaign, we can
see the attempt of the government and political figures to impose on people new clothes and new
image as quickly as possible, for the greater purpose of presenting the country as a trendsetter, a
place where everyone, the old and the young, the politicians and the celebrities enjoy everything
labeled “cool” in the present day. In 1997, Robin Cook additionally wanted to promote British
altruistic values through the message that it was a safe country because it made sure to help other
countries and made them safe too. The idea was not only to present the country as moral, but to
show through action that its moral outlook stemmed from the actual moves it made. But, the
program of this campaign openly stated that as its final aim it had the national economic interest
following the string of thoughts that if Britain was truly altruistic country and showed that to the
rest of the world, this would be returned by more jobs created within the country and economy
boost.71
This is yet another paradox, but at the same time it confirms that Britain was aware that
glazing over through simply branding the country, without the real change within the identity, will
be very short-lived. Unfortunately, this realization didn’t help much in the formation of its agenda
which appeared contradictory, and even more when the program in which Britain intended to show
its altruism “Arms to Africa” scandal happened. Namely, while ensuring the human right protection
in Sierra Leone, British government was accused of providing arms to the rebel groups which
planned a coup and contrary to the UN’s embargo on arms in Sierra Leone. The Commons put the
blame on British senior diplomat Sir John Kerr who knew what was happening and failed to inform
Foreign Secretary Robin Cook about that.72
This debacle tarnished John Kerr’s reputation, as well
as British altruistic intentions, and finally, the situation altogether with the infamous Iraq War led to
the resignation of Cook himself.73
In the years to come these and similar failures would provoke
suspicion when it comes to presenting Britain as aiming for peace, stability and prosperity in other
countries.
Traditional British Identity
In order to realize what a huge shift of British presentation to people within and without was
initiated and maintained through public diplomacy, we need to trace back the core British identity to
its origins. Branding of Great Britain as a hub of liberal values wouldn’t be so uncommon if it
wasn’t so different from what Britain used to represent not so long ago. The author here argues that
70
Ibid, 42-3. 71
Robin Cook, Speech on the Government Ethical Foreign Policy (aka, the ‘Mission Statement’), 12 May, in Pamment,
British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, 43. 72
Nicholas Watt and Richard Norton-Taylor, “Blair challenged on arms supplies for African rebels”, The
Guardian.com, February 11, 1999, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/feb/11/politicalnews.foreignpolicy,
(accessed March 24, 2107). 73
Pamment, British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 43.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/feb/11/politicalnews.foreignpolicy
-
25
the changes of the aspects of collective identity are in fact possible, and have happened throughout
history in many countries. However, if some big changes are imposed on people to accept them
within a very limited period of time, and not just to passively accept them as something around
them, but to absorb new values as their own, it can easily lead to rejecting those changes as alien
from within, and to skepticism about the truthfulness of the changes from without. Therefore, the
events of the previous chapter should be put in the context of historical continuity, having in mind
that identity is not something which can be forged within a few years, but that it is a product of
evolving in certain direction throughout hundreds of years. Metaphorically speaking, if we imagine
identity as a building in the everlasting process of construction, the foundation of the building is the
core of the identity. The first floors of that building may be quite old-fashioned and something the
builders are not very proud of. That doesn’t mean that the next floors won’t change as the building
mechanisms are being perfected. The last built floors might truly be state-of-the-art and pride for
everyone living and working on them. Once the builders are more experienced, even the
rehabilitation of the old foundation can be implemented in order to change it, modernize it, or make
it stronger, but only in a slow and gradual manner. However, it is not possible to simply swiftly
change the existing foundation with a completely new one, and hoping that no one would feel the
trembling. Such an attempt may result in the collapse of the whole meticulously constructed
skyscraper. And here lies the potential threat to the existence of British identity.
Colley’s Perception of British Identity
The creation of British identity started with the Act of the Union which united Scotland
with England and Wales in 1707. According to Colley the creation of what Britishness was and
what it would be in the future also didn’t happen overnight. It lasted till the 1837, that is, the
beginning of the Victorian era. The book Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837 reveals that the
primary vehicle behind this unison was constant threat from without, because of which people of
Britain were willing to cast a blind eye to some less appealing aspects of the new organization
scheme and accept the idea that they are, although quite different among themselves, parts of one
whole which needs to be defended from the external enemies.74
Colley writes: “What made these
themes, mass allegiance on the one hand, and the invention of Britishness on the other, so central
during this 130-year long period was a succession of wars between Britain and France”.75
In order
to create consent among people and make them join all these battles and sacrifice their lives, the
government had to create the strong sense of belonging to a nation and patriotism among people “as
a bandwagon on which different groups and interests leaped so as to steer it in a direction that
74
Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992), 357-368. 75
Ibid, 1.
-
26
would benefit them”.76
Collective identity of Britons came to the fore during this period, and while
defining what was “them” they managed to define what was “us”. “They defined themselves as
Protestants struggling for survival against the world’s most Catholic power. They defined
themselves against the French as they imagined them to be, superstitious, militarist, decadent and
unfree. Also, as the wars went on, many of them defined themselves in contrast to the colonial
peoples they conquered, peoples who were manifestly alien in terms of culture religion and colour”.
77 Colley further emphasizes that, opposite to widespread belief, what came to be termed British
identity wasn’t created due to “blending” of the differences between the English, the Scottish, the
Irish and the Welsh, or due to England’s superiority over other regions, but as a response “to the
Other beyond their shores”. The fact that they were an island country and that they were
predominantly Protestants in face of the spreading Catholic influence, helped them see themselves
as different, special, righteous, God-given nation, destined to defend and fight for what was truly
good. Their misrepresentation of Catholicism and history perversion allowed them to see the
Catholics as enemies. In this context, we can see that even threatening religion was connected to
threatening France. In the 18th
century Britain started using some approaches which will be devised
and professionalized in the 20th
and 21st century public diplomacy. Namely, they saw the
importance of promoting a good image of their country, and engaged themselves in various charity
endeavours and promotion of distinct artworks, for the purpose of boosting their already successful
trade operations.78
Through the associations concerned with art, such was The Society of Arts, we
can see the great lengths to which the Britons went in order to put a stop to everything which had to
do with France, or some other European country which could be viewed as their rival. During the
Seven Years War in the second half of the 18th
century, the meticulously crafted collective identity
of the Britons proved to be an extremely powerful force uniting England as the center with its
peripheries, as the major part of the British army consisted of the Scotsmen. After victory in that
war, the image of the country perceived from within and without was simply self-imposed in
accordance with its deeds- “they assumed form themselves the reputation of being the most
aggressive, the most affluent and the most swiftly expanding power in the world”.79
But, to think
that war successes Britain managed to accomplish didn’t leave a mark on their identity, would be
simply wrong. When it comes to the national identity which had to be re-modeled now when the
British Empire officially encompassed completely different cultures and nationalities, Colley
writes: “rather like the frog in Aesop fable which exploded in trying to compete with the ox, at the
end of the day they were left wondering if they had overstretched themselves, made nervous and
76
Ibid, 5. 77
Ibid, 6. 78
Ibid, 59. 79
Ibid, 103.
-
27
insecure by their colossal new dimensions”. The main root, of such a huge identity crisis in the 18th
century was that all the Britons took great pride in the fact that they were free people and in their
opinion that all other countries should be free, but all of a sudden they were those who robbed many
other nations of their liberty.80
And precisely in the period of a seeming peace, in the aftermath of
the Seven Years War, and in the midst of the insecurities about the characteristics of the national
identity, is when serious cracks in the inner composition of the nation appeared. Since, the Scots, as
we have previously mentioned, were a major force in the war, they proportionately wanted greater
rights in the country in which England held an obvious supremacy. In such an atmosphere England
felt threatened so much that its feelings escalated in what was termed “Scottophobia” led by a
nationalist, John Wilkes. At that point, in many minds, the sense of Englishness surpassed that of
Britishness, showing the weaknesses of the country at the moments of temporary truce. These
sentiments had to be surpassed by once again promoting higher loyalties, accepting more Scotsmen
into the ruling circle, which in turn enabled inter-regional marriages, and formed something
resembling internal stability. But, perhaps, none of it would be so efficient, if there wasn’t a new
war, this time with their own 13 colonies on the new continent. What history further tells us is that
“worst of all, of course, and uniquely in this period [Britain] lost”, because what would in the future
become the US had many allies, while decisively isolated Britain had close to none. Immediately
after the war, the collective identity suffered another blow, because Britain ascribed their constant
war success to their moral and otherwise superior nature.81
This defeat had to be internalized with
the reasoning that they committed a sin by raising arms on their American Protestant fellows, and
that, therefore, they had to get back to the path of righteousness. However, in the followi